Activists call for nationwide protests to protect Mueller investigation

[iguanaman]

In other words, the ends justify the means, as in "Psst! Sessions is a bigot, but that's okay because we have bigger fish to fry!"

As unpleasant as a relic like Sessions was policy wise he at least had the decency to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. You should know that there is nothing more important than insuring the integrity of our leaders. It goes beyond politics because it strikes at the very heart of our Republic.

 

[Hawkeye10]

As unpleasant as a relic like Sessions was policy wise he at least had the decency to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. You should know that there is nothing more important than insuring the integrity of our leaders. It goes beyond politics because it strikes at the very heart of our Republic.

Boy, we have long failed at that.

Just look at how corrupt America is, and at some of the really stupid **** we do...for instance Iraq.

 

[iguanaman]

Boy, we have long failed at that.

Just look at how corrupt America is, and at some of the really stupid **** we do...for instance Iraq.

Yes Republicans are often poor at governing but criminality and complete disregard for the rule of law is over the line. We appear to have a criminal cabal trying to ruin our country for their own profit and people are dying because of it. You do know it is not just Democrats that feel this way. Mueller and Trumps tax returns will tell the story and we will have them both.

 

[TurtleDude]

He will at first, but if it goes on for weeks, months, and keeps getting coverage...

I guess this goes to show that whining lefties tend not to have important jobs

 

[Hawkeye10]

Yes Republicans are often poor at governing but criminality and complete disregard for the rule of law is over the line. We appear to have a criminal cabal trying to ruin our country for their own profit and people are dying because of it. You do know it is not just Democrats that feel this way. Mueller and Trumps tax returns will tell the story and we will have them both.

You partisans exhaust me.

We are all in this crappy boat together...Wake Up please.,,The hour is late....surely you can figure this much out.....

 

[iguanaman]

You partisans exhaust me.

We are all in this crappy boat together...Wake Up please.,,The hour is late....surely you can figure this much out.....

You are in the boat and we are going to sink it. It's corrupt and full of holes. Deep down you know it is right. We have a system to deal with this and it is the reason we are still free.

 

[Hawkeye10]

You are in the boat and we are going to sink it. It's corrupt and full of holes. Deep down you know it is right.

I fear as much......that The New Chinese Empire will make fast work of us.....and that BIG PAIN is coming.

 

[iguanaman]

I fear as much......that The New Chinese Empire will make fast work of us.....and that BIG PAIN is coming.

That is why you will lose. Fearing the unknown is not what Americans do. That is how we got to the moon.

 

[Hawkeye10]

That is why you will lose. Fearing the unknown is not what Americans do. That is how we got to the moon.

Notice how petty you are.

And how wrong.

:bon_voyag

 

[Mach]

No. Not if it was a Democrat. If Whittaker SUPPORTED ALL that which Mueller has done thus far, would that DISQUALIFY Whitaker for the position as readily as his actual oposition to SOME of things Mueller has done?

Probably so, that's why most career DOJ professionals aren't on Fox news blabbing about an ongoing investigation, and instead, work in relative anonymity, avoiding the media, and sure as **** not handing out their opinion on an ongoing investigation.
Whittaker is a partisan joke, he's got no business in the position and everyone, including Whittaker, knows it.

Hell, his former company he advised on the board of, is under FBI investigation.
The person he campaign chaired for Clovis, is part of the Muller probe.
He's come out in public defending the president and pre-judging the Mueller probe.

Trump's a moron, why would he do something so stupid? What would make Trump do something so stupid? Desperate to gain control over being investigated? Or just stupid?

 

[Athanasius68]

Probably so, that's why most career DOJ professionals aren't on Fox news blabbing about an ongoing investigation, and instead, work in relative anonymity, avoiding the media, and sure as **** not handing out their opinion on an ongoing investigation.
Whittaker is a partisan joke, he's got no business in the position and everyone, including Whittaker, knows it.

Hell, his former company he advised on the board of, is under FBI investigation.
The person he campaign chaired for Clovis, is part of the Muller probe.
He's come out in public defending the president and pre-judging the Mueller probe.

Trump's a moron, why would he do something so stupid? What would make Trump do something so stupid? Desperate to gain control over being investigated? Or just stupid?

Whittaker was not working for the government when he made and wrote his comments.

 

[Mach]

Whittaker was not working for the government when he made and wrote his comments.

Sky monkey cheese brain fried.

Posting random nonsense again? You can't troll for ****.

 

[Verax]

I guess this goes to show that whining lefties tend not to have important jobs

They rotate, some take time off, some quit their job. Hard working average Americans have to make sacrifices to get what they want.

 

[dcaraz]

While I like the idea, the reality is Trump will give zero ****s about the protest.

The demonstration is not for Trump, who gives a rat's a** about impropriety. Massive demonstrations in public are more critical to a democracy than quiet online chats like this one. People need to protest loudly what is seen by many as an unmitigated power grab by an unethical president. Americans have to demonstrate to show the other elected folks that the majority of citizens are not buying into Trump's trampling on the constitution. The message needs to be: "Break the law while in office and you'll be brought down and tried."

In this case, the president's attempt to circumvent the constitutionally mandated Senate approval of any Cabinet department secretary needs to be drummed into Comrade Trump's brain.
Of course he'd love to have this Matt Whitaker occupy America's highest law enforcement, investigative and security position. Whitaker is on record slamming the Mueller investigation
as a "Mueller lynch mob". We are now learning Whitaker has also been a paid director of a Florida corp that was put out of business by the feds and fined $26MM because it defrauded customers as a scam. This guy Whitaker fits the Trump mold like all the future felons who have already pleaded guilty or are awaiting trial. I loved "The Godfather" flicks, but American's who care about our democracy need to act toward disinfecting the White House.

 

[Athanasius68]

Sky monkey cheese brain fried.

Posting random nonsense again? You can't troll for ****.

Whittaker joined the Justice Department in Oct 2017.

He wrote the column in August 2017.

Typically, August comes before October.
That was true in 2017.

 

[dcaraz]

In other words, the ends justify the means, as in "Psst! Sessions is a bigot, but that's okay because we have bigger fish to fry!"

Bigotry as defined by Webster's is simply a person's blind and intolerant adherence to a particular creed or opinion. That's not the same as illegal or unlawful acts, which
the Mueller investigation is looking into. Many folks on this forum hold their political and social views blindly and with intolerance for others. But one hopes they are not also
criminals, such as the growing list who have been indicted by Mueller's team.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What should be reported to the FBI? That someone said they had something...and didn't?

Anyway, people have meetings all the time to get dirt on their opponents. Nothing illegal about that, is there? Heck, didn't Hillary have people talking to Ukrainians about Trump?

Classic "Whataboutism".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

They also approached him saying they had dirt. They didn't. They lied.

Since you haven't seen what they did have, shouldn't you be waiting for all the evidence to be in before making up your mind?

Or it this simply a case of "That's DIFFERENT!!!"?

What makes you think they were telling the truth about a connection to the Russian government?

Since all the evidence isn't in yet, what makes you think that they were NOT telling the truth about a connection to the Russian government?

Isn't your position that we should never make a decision until all of the evidence is in?

 

[Mycroft]

Classic "Whataboutism".

Not really. My point is about legality.

 

[Mycroft]

Since you haven't seen what they did have, shouldn't you be waiting for all the evidence to be in before making up your mind?

Or it this simply a case of "That's DIFFERENT!!!"?



Since all the evidence isn't in yet, what makes you think that they were NOT telling the truth about a connection to the Russian government?

Isn't your position that we should never make a decision until all of the evidence is in?

Sure. Let's see the evidence. All we have so far is leaks and speculation. Based on that stuff, I see nothing illegal.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When Sessions went through his confirmation process less than two years ago progressives screamed to the mountaintops that they they didn't want a bigot as attorney general. NOW they're pissed off that Trump fired him. :doh So much for principle.

If you had to pick between:

1. someone of the opposing political belief (in the US the term for that is "bigot") who had no record of run-ins with the law and who had a reputation for possessing an inclination towards ethical behaviour who was independent; or
2. someone of the opposing political belief who had a record of run-ins with the law (resolved adversely to that person) and who had a reputation for NOT possessing an inclination towards ethical behaviour and who was NOT independent;

which would you prefer? (PLEASE NOTE - In the context of this question there IS NO OPTION 3..)

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not really. My point is about legality.

When your point is, essentially, "It's not wrong for X to do Y because Z also did that terribly improper Y.", then you have "Whataboutism".

 

[Mycroft]

When your point is, essentially, "It's not wrong for X to do Y because Z also did that terribly improper Y.", then you have "Whataboutism".

Sorry, but that wasn't my point.

Read my post again and drop the pseudo logic.

 

[Bullseye]

Question still remains what exactly are we protecting the Mueller investigation from? All I've see Whitaker say is that Mueller needs/needed to focus more on what he was told to investigate- the alleged collusion between Trump campaign and the Russian Government. Makes sense to me. While I understand the crazed mob of Trumpophobes what everything from the skid marks in his skivvies to his multimillion dollar business deals decades ago dug into with microscopes - that's not what Mueller was told to do.

 

[Ahlevah]

If you had to pick between:

1. someone of the opposing political belief (in the US the term for that is "bigot") who had no record of run-ins with the law and who had a reputation for possessing an inclination towards ethical behaviour who was independent; or
2. someone of the opposing political belief who had a record of run-ins with the law (resolved adversely to that person) and who had a reputation for NOT possessing an inclination towards ethical behaviour and who was NOT independent;

which would you prefer? (PLEASE NOTE - In the context of this question there IS NO OPTION 3..)

Can you connect the dots between your hypothetical example and Sessions? Who's the devil here?